Powerpoint template for scientific posters ...

2 downloads 61 Views 442KB Size Report
Protagonist hits friend. Protagonist yells at friend and calls them a bad name. Dependent Variables. Moral Evaluations. Psychological Knowledge. Judgments.
Moral Complexity in Middle Childhood: Children’s Evaluations of Necessary Harm Marc Jambon and Judith Smetana University of Rochester

Introduction  Many situations entail conflicts between competing moral concerns (Helwig, 1995). Although norms against harm are universal, there are instances where

Results Independent Variables Story

Harm Type

(within subjects)

(between subjects)

emerges at around age 6 (Darley & Shultz, 1990). However, it is unclear whether reasoning about such necessary harm changes with age or whether Prototypical Harm

Necessary Harm

Physical Harm

Psychological Harm

Straight forward, selfish

Well-intended, preventing greater harm to self or others

Protagonist hits friend

Protagonist yells at friend and calls them a bad name

the factors influencing the salience of concerns differ for younger and older children.  Specific advances in children’s knowledge of others’ minds plays a role in the emergence of more nuanced moral evaluations. However, most studies examining the relationship between mental state understanding (i.e., theory of

Dependent Variables Moral Evaluations

Psychological Knowledge

developments in psychological knowledge at later ages (Wainryb & Brehl,

Judgments

Justifications

2006). An understanding of discrete mental states such as beliefs and

(3 point scales)

(present/absent)

intentions emerges during the preschool years, but children do not actively

Wrongness Why was the act - was actor’s actions ok/not ok? ok or not ok (little bad, very bad)? Actor transgression – references to the protagonists’ harm Deserved Punishment - Should actor get in Actor Positive trouble (little, lot)? Act/Intent

appreciate the interpretative and subjective nature of mental life until middle to late childhood (Carpendale & Chandler, 1996).  Psychological knowledge may also be important for children’s understanding of abstract moral concepts such as psychological harm (e.g. causing emotional distress). Prior to age 7 or 8, children show deficits in their ability to attend to

Harmful intent belief (yes/no) What was the actor really trying to do? Were they trying to hurt their friend?

actor’s positive intentions or their attempts to prevent harm or protect themselves or others

* Higher scores = more wrong and more deserving of punishment

perspective and an actor’s intent (Helwig et al., 1995, 2001). More research is needed to understand how the development of children’s psychological knowledge of others beyond the preschool years is implicated in more

*Responses on either question indicating a belief that the actor’s intention was to harm was coded as ‘yes’

b = .05, p = * Necessary Harm

b = - .08, p = ***

With age, children were less likely to reference the actor’s transgression in the necessary harm condition (Left). Children were more likely to mention the actor’s positive actions/intent with age, but only when actors used psychological harm (Right).

Older

[Necessary Harm Condition]

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Psychological Harm

Physical Harm

b = .16, p = ***

b = .04, p = ns

Younger

Older

Actor Interpretation (5 point scale) Did the actor think they were doing something alright (just ok, little good, very good) or not alright (little bad, very bad)?

- references to the

the moral features of psychologically harmful acts, such as the victim’s

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Actor Positive Act/Intent Prototypical Harm

Younger

*Higher scores = actors have more positive views of their own harm

Psychological Knowledge % children scord 'yes'

mind) and morality have been limited to early childhood, despite significant

(a)

Actor Transgression % containing justification

Children’s understanding of situations entailing mitigating circumstances

Moral Justification Responses

% responses containing justification

hurting others may be justified (e.g., self defense; protecting loved ones).

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Harmful Intent Beliefs Prototypical Harm

4 Most children did not believe actors were trying to cause harm (Left).

Actor Interpretation Ratings

3

Prototypical Harm

Necessary Harm

b = .00, p = ns

1 b = .18, p = **

b = -.05, p = **

Younger

Necessary Harm

2

Children rated all actors as having more positive and accepting views of their own harmful actions (Right).

0 Older

Younger

Older

complex, flexible moral evaluations

Analysis Plan

.

Hypotheses 1 and 2:

Current Study Aims Objective:

Moral Evaluations & Psychological Knowledge

 2 (Story) X 2 (Harm Type) X Age ANCOVAs

Forgiveness Ratings

 Age treated as a continuous variable

Examine children’s understanding of well-intended, necessary

 Interactions involving age probed using simple slopes analyses

harm during the middle childhood years.

Hypotheses:

 Hierarchical regressions

1) Moral Evaluations: Older children would…  be more forgiving of necessary harm than younger children

Results

 refer more to the well-intended actor’s positive intentions and less to the harm

transgressor meant to prevent harm, but with age children would rate actors

2

Prototypical Harm Necessary Harm

1

3) Psychological Knowledge and Moral Judgments: Controlling for age and

b = -.17, p = **

Moral Judgments

harmful intent beliefs, more positive ratings of the actor’s interpretation would be .

Older children judged necessary harm to be less wrong and less deserving of punishment than younger children.

0

Younger

Methods

Older

Deserved Punishment 2

b = .00, p = ns

Prototypical Harm

 57% male, 72% European American, lower middle to upper middle class 1

Necessary Harm

b = -.15, p = **

Stimuli & Design:  2 (Story) X 2 (Harm Type) design

β

SE

Δ R2

b

β

SE

.40**

.27

.04

.07**

-.37 .02

.08**

.41

.02

.07

.10

.06

-.02

-.05 .04

-.06

-.15

.03

Harmful intent

-.07

-.03 .25

-.26

-.24 .17

-.06

-.02

.14

Age x Harm Type

-.04

-.12 .03

-.02

-.10 .02

-.06*

-.31

.02

.09**

.28

.03

.10

Harm type

**

.07**

.22** .32** .47**

.54

.06** -.10** -.30 .04

.06 .24**

.46**

 Across middle childhood, children come to understand that harm may be morally justifiable in some circumstances. This is tied

actions.

 Semi-structured interviews; hypothetical vignettes

b

Discussion

b = .05, p = ns

engaging in necessary harm as having more positive and accepting views of their

 76 children (Mage = 7.79, SD= 1.85, Range = 5.17 – 11.42 years)

Δ R2 .17**

Age

Total R2

Wrongness

SE

.25**

Actor interpretations

2) Psychological Knowledge: All children would understand that the

β

b

Actor Positive Act/Intent

-

Step 2

caused by the actor in the necessary harm condition.

Participants:

Step 1

For necessary (but not prototypical) harm, children who viewed actors as holding more positive views of their own behavior were more forgiving of the transgressions, focusing less on the actor’s transgression and more on their positive actions/intent.

Hypothesis 3:

associated with more forgiving moral judgments and justifications

Δ R2

Actor Transgression

0

Younger

Older

to their developing appreciation for others’ psychological perspective. However, older children’s willingness to focus on the actor’s positive actions and intentions depended on the type of harm depicted.  While age-related increases in psychological knowledge were evident across both prototypical and necessary harm stories, the ability to consider the actor’s perspective was associated with judgments of necessary but not prototypical harm. Therefore, understanding the underlying motivations for an action does not determine children’s moral judgments. Rather, it serves as a tool for the emergence of more complex forms of moral thought. References Carependale, J. & Chandler, M. (1996). On the distinction between false belief understanding and subscribing to an interpretive theory of mind. Child Development, 67, 1686-1706. Darley, J. & Shultz, T. (1990). Moral rules: Their content and acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 525-556. Helwig, C. (1995). Social context in social cognition: Psychological harm and civil liberties. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in Everyday Life: Developmental Perspectives (pp. 166-200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Helwig, C., Hildebrandt, C., & Turiel, E. (1995). Children’s judgments about psychological harm in social context. Child Development, 66, 1680-1693. Helwig, C., Zelazo, P., &Helwig, C., Zelazo, P., & Wilson, M. (2001). Children’s judgments of psychological harm in normal and noncanonical situations. Child Development, 72, 66-81. Smetana, J. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children's moral and social judgments. In M. Killen and J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of Moral Development (pp. 119-153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wainryb, C., & Brehl, B. (2006). I thought she knew that would hurt my feelings: Developing psychological knowledge and moral thinking. In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior (pp. 131-171). New York: Elsevier.